Public Safety Committee 6/25/2024

Committee will come to order.

It's 9.32 on June 25th, 2024. I'm Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Present.

Council Member Moore.

Council Member Moore is excused due to a sickness.

Council President Nelson is also excused due to a traveling.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present and also recognizing Council Member Strauss as a non-voting member.

Well, we're very happy to have Council Member Strauss join us due to the agenda.

But for any occasion, you're always welcome to join us.

Obviously, with our maritime briefing, safety briefing, thank you for joining us this morning.

Appreciate it.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for today?

Currently, we have one in person and one remote.

Okay, thank you.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in which order in which they registered.

Speakers will hear chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comment within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first speaker is Eugene Wasserman.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle, for having the water study done today.

It's a topic that's very important to my members as well as other people in the maritime community.

When several council members tried to defund the police several years ago, that group tried to move Harbor Patrol over to the fire department, which people I'm associated with want.

They appreciate both services, but they seem very different.

So we put together a coalition of recreational boaters, maritime interests from the port, maritime interests in my group, which is not port related, but more to the Alaska area.

And we found a lot of people.

We put together, like Bob Donegan, who has several facilities on the water and many of the festivals to make sure we had a harbor patrol, which was successful of.

And then in response to that, Council Member Strauss put together money for the study because when it came right down to it, nobody really understood who was patrolling the lot and what water safety efforts would be done.

And so he put together the study, which I've read and really appreciate the work they put into it.

It's like a baseline on what's actually happening right now with some suggestions for the future.

But if you read the report, you could see how complicated the situation is. and it needs some more work after you review this.

I mean, for some people, this is very much a life-saving effort by both the fire department and the Harbor Patrol.

Last summer, there were quite a few rescues by both groups working together and separately that saved people's lives.

So that's a primary thing, is saving people's lives.

The second thing for us, we're more friendly with the Harbor Patrol because they patrol we talk to them they're out there a lot we appreciate the fire department but we don't know them personally as well and i'm trying to change some of that i had a captain out there talk about you know fire training and stuff like that but having we have a lot of crime coming in off the water and so harbor trail is essential to us to protect our businesses and also people a lot of people live on the waterfront one quick thing there's an issue with andrews bay that they're not getting services from Harbor Patrol for safety, and that needs to be dealt with as an equity issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I should note that, yes, as chair of this committee, we are happy and encouraging and supportive of the maritime safety briefing.

But as noted, Council Member Strauss was the one who kicked this process off, so I appreciate that.

Next, next, next up, we have a remote speaker.

And that's BJ last.

Please press star six when you hear the been unmuted.

Good morning, my name is BJ.

I actually want to congratulate Council on finding inefficiencies and duplication in the budget, which is something that they've talked a lot about doing to address the massive looming shortfall.

Because the Seattle Waterway Safety Overview really highlights just a ton of duplication of services taking place on Seattle waters.

Like you mentioned that there are about three city agencies and 11 outside agencies having responsibilities for waterway safety, which is just a mass amount of duplication that is actually millions of dollars of spending that could potentially be spent to start trying to close some of the $260 million budget deficit without actually reducing any services.

Just some examples of some of the duplication looking through.

There are seven agencies.

I believe, yep, seven agencies, only one of which is related to the city of Seattle.

So we have six agencies outside the city of Seattle that have law enforcement on Seattle waterways, including U.S.

Coast Guard, who the report notes is having jurisdiction over Seattle waterways.

In terms of search and rescue, there are seven search and rescue agencies.

By rescue, there are six agencies.

So this is a ton of duplication and inefficiencies that council has managed to find that can really help to start closing that budget gap.

I also want to speak to the reappointment of Lisa Judge as head of the OIG.

I do not think Lisa Judge should be getting reappointed given with the history of the OIG.

We have whistle point OIG pressuring staff to avoid criticizing the OPA in writing, which is a big part of OIG's responsibility to be independent.

We've also had reports of OIG auditors certifying OPA cases without even opening the file or reviewing a single document within it.

Also, three years ago, there was a big issue of SPD and OPA violating by including confidential medical information in a closed case summary.

OIG has completely dodged any responsibility for this by sitting on it for six months, and now offloading that to an outside party.

That's why this investigation is still ongoing three years later.

This shows that accountability organizations cannot be counted on to actually maintain privacy rights for the people of Seattle, which is a massive concern, especially given the way the council is trying to expand surveillance.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

There are no additional registered speakers, and we'll now proceed.

Before the first agenda item, I wanted to do our chair report after the public speakers versus before.

And there's a couple items I wanted to speak to really quickly.

The first is a report here, the City of Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Commission Report, subtitled Entry Police Exam Vendor Due Diligence Report.

This has become a subject that's been in the news many times.

I think it's important for the committee and me as the chair to speak to it.

One of the things in these articles, they keep speaking to the fact that the legislation that we recently passed was to replace the NTN, the National Testing Network, with the PST, the Public Safety Test.

That was never the case.

With our legislation, it was all about augmenting the NTN with the PST test.

And there's within the report, too, so that's point one.

Within the report, too, they said, you know, the idea that you can't have both tests.

Well, there are instances here in Washington State where both tests are used.

And that's important to note.

I support the NTN, the National Testing Network.

I think it's a very good test.

But the challenge is, is its presence within Washington State.

It's relatively minimal, particularly compared to the PST test, which is run by IOS.

Only about a quarter to a third.

I had a meeting with the recruitment team yesterday as part of the follow-up to our legislation earlier this year and noted that, you know, a quarter to a third of the police officers are from...

out of state.

That's it.

So the majority of our officers are coming from in-state.

And this is a problem because PST is the most used in Washington state.

And importantly, and this is important to note, when the applicants, when the candidates apply with the PST, they can send it to multiple jurisdictions.

Not unlike a You know, high school senior looking to go to college can do a common application to many colleges.

This fact puts us at a disadvantage, a major disadvantage, you know, when we're trying to recruit against neighboring jurisdictions.

And it's very important for us to, you know, to do the best that we can and to basically eliminate these disadvantages that we have.

And that's the reason why we were in this legislation calling on, not mandating, calling on the commission to add the PST to the NTN.

Now they make a valid point about ranking in the report.

I have nothing against that, but the sad fact of life is that that would be applicable if, for example, we were looking for two out of 10 qualified candidates.

But the bottom line is, and sadly, and this comes out of the actions of the previous council, is that we're dealing with a situation where we need 10 of 10 qualified candidates, and we're gonna need 10 of 10 qualified candidates for a long time coming.

And so we need to be, you know, addressing our challenges and doing it with all the means available.

And so that's why our legislation calls for the NTN to be augmented by the PST and not replaced by the PST.

And another thing, too, is I think it's really important for the public to know, and we have some fire personnel here, too, who would recognize this point, as would my fellow veteran here on the dais.

This is an entry-level test.

There's so much being brought to it, but it's the first step.

To become a police officer in our city, you go through a battery of tests.

You have the oral boards.

You have the psyche valves.

You have polygraphs.

You have the whole list of things you have to go through.

You have to go through the entire academy, which is a psychological, physical, academic, emotional challenge, a test every day that you're in the academy, even after the academy, before the badge has turned out to be a test.

And then not to mention, once they become officers and they go on the street, they're still in probation.

And so there's an arc of tests before a police officer becomes fully up and up on our streets serving our city.

And so this idea that NTN is the thing, and the only thing, is an impression that I get from these articles and reporting, and it's misplaced.

And so I just wanted to highlight, as it says in the title, entry police exam.

It is the screening test.

It is not the test solely in terms of determining if a officer, a candidate, is qualified to serve on our police force.

And again, we need 10 of 10 qualified candidates to the ranking point.

It's not like we're looking to get two of 10. It's definitely not the case.

And so I just wanted to make those remarks.

And it's, you know, and part of this too is, you know, expectations management too.

There's been some recent reporting about, you know, the retention and recruitment of officers and retention numbers, the lowest since, you know, very long time ago, decades ago.

You know, we flattened the curve on retention, but the recruitment piece, just what I was talking about, will take a long time.

And so this is gonna take, like, the term of this council to undo what's happened as it relates to police SBD staffing.

So that's a, you know, expectations management piece as well.

But we as a council, particularly us as a committee, we are determined to work this in so many different levels, and we will.

And the other thing I wanted to note as chair, for those who read the Sunday Times, there was two articles.

One was titled, Cops and Consequences, Public Safety in the Governor's Race.

And then the second one was by Nicholas, and that was by Alex Fryer from the Ed Board.

And then Nicholas Kristof with his now pretty famous report that was released last week in the New York Times and then came out Sunday.

with our Seattle Times, what have we liberals done to the West Coast?

I recommend both and I wanted to speak to the first one because it's very important because it goes to pillar six of our strategic framework to address the permissive environment that underlies our public safety challenges.

We as a city need to work together and this is why like today with our briefings and the work we're doing with OIG as well and then with the street racing, is that we as a city come together, city attorney, the executive, the legislative, come together and we work our public safety challenges.

Then importantly, again, pillar six, that we're engaging with the county and the state.

It is super important for us to engage with the state to the issues here that are in this article and speak to things like pursuit, speak to the other things that have impacted our, you know, permissive environment, our ability to address our public safety challenges.

It's really important for us to engage.

And we're developing a list of items to advocate with Olympia come next session.

And we need to do this.

We need to engage with our state legislators and then up to the governor on the issues that are highlighted in this article, but even more.

And we have to do this quite importantly.

But the one criticism that I have for this is public safety, there's really little mention of public health.

As I've mentioned many times, we're not going to succeed in public safety if we don't also succeed in public health.

And this is where the state really needs to come through.

And I've said many times, if we were ranked in mental health spending number two, like our dogs and UW are in college football, at least last season, if we were number two in mental health spending across the country, across the 50 states, like over the last decade, how much capacity, mental health beds, how much capacity would we have on the public health side right now?

And what would be the impact on our public safety?

What would be the impact on our fire department if we had that state support, not to mention county support in public health?

WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THE OPTEMPO FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT?

IT IS KEY, AND IT'S NOT REALLY SPOKEN TO THE MAIN ARTICLE, BUT IT'S REALLY HIGHLIGHTED IN THE SECOND ARTICLE, AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY I BRING IT UP, BECAUSE NICHOLAS CHRISTOFF TALKS ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE IN OREGON AND PORTLAND, AND HE SPEAKS OF HIS SCHOOL FRIEND WHO DIED, PUBLIC HEALTH CHALLENGE.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THESE TWO ARTICLES TO HIGHLIGHT THE POINT THAT WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER AS A ONE SEATTLE TEAM TO WORK TO PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WE'RE SHOWING THIS IN OUR MEETING TODAY.

with the city attorney being here, with the executive, with the fire, and actually the maritime safety to the point raised by both in-person and online is that it's bringing a whole number of actors together for our maritime safety to ensure that our public safety overall is set.

And so I just wanted to highlight that as a chair's report, taking a little prerogative this morning.

So thank you for that indulgence.

And so clerk, we will now move to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item number one into the record?

Agenda item one, appointment 02896, the reappointment of Lisa Allison Judge as an Inspector General for a term to December 31, 2030.

Thank you very much.

And on this, I just want to highlight for agenda one, Lisa Judge and the reappointment of her as the Inspector General to lead our Office Inspector General.

This is a vital position.

It's stood up under her.

She's the first and we're looking to reappoint her.

And I will say from a couple things.

The OIG, if people don't understand it, is basically the organization that's going to inherit the responsibilities of the federal monitor.

We're looking to move on beyond the consent decree that we've been under for a dozen years plus, which has been a driver for our reforms, which we're embracing and this committee embraces.

But we need to move on as well.

And part of that process is to transfer those responsibilities with the federal monitor to the OIG.

And we have a strong OIG that's been developed under Inspector General Judge.

I've worked with her directly on a number of issues.

I've also seen her work directly with myself or with my staff with her counterparts, particularly Director Betz at OPA.

And this is the kind of thing that we need.

We need to have this kind of cooperation and coordination between the accountability partners, not just the three accountability partners, the CPC, the OIG, and the OPA, but also with us as the council because we're part of the accountability system as due to our oversight responsibilities over the executive and the system overall.

And so with that, plus the fact that the OIG has received awards and they've been doing their job and importantly for the accountability system, we do need that stability.

We need to build on what has been accomplished so far.

And I think the best way to do that is the reappointment of Lisa Judge as our inspector general.

So I would move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointment 2896. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointment.

Are there any other comments?

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just curious, where is Inspector General Judge this morning?

She's not here.

I did not ask for her to be here since she was here last time for the questions.

Thank you.

I guess I would hope that...

inspector general judge show up for the final committee.

I'm prepared to vote today, but you know, I would hope, I mean.

For the council.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Given, given the gravity of this appointment and the impact.

So yeah, but I'm prepared to move forward today.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the rule on the recommendation to confirm the appointment.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are three in favor and none opposed.

Based on the majority, the motion carries and the recommendation that the appointment be confirmed will be sent to the city council where for Vice Chair Saka, she will be in attendance.

Okay, we'll move now onto our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Seattle Waterways Safety Overview Briefing and Discussion with Ariel Say and Allegra Calder from Burke Consulting and Lieutenant Bob Kearns from Seattle Fire Department.

Okay, welcome everyone.

I appreciate your attendance today and this presentation of the reporting both from the consulting firm Ms. Ursaia and Calder, and also Lieutenant Kearns.

Thank you very much for joining us this morning.

And with the clerk's assistance, we'll line things up and turn it over to you.

I think with this briefing and the fact that we have the four of us here, that if you have questions to include from our guest committee member, Council Member Strauss, please ask as we go along, or you can hold your questions to the end.

Either way, with today, I think we have that flexibility.

Chair Mayer?

Yes, go ahead.

Before we get in, thanks.

Actually, can you do that as an introduction?

As I often joke, I often call Council Member Strauss the council historian, and that kind of history setup piece is very important, not just for the Budget Committee or Finance Committee, but it's also turning out to be helpful here with the Public Safety Committee this meeting.

this morning i may be younger in age but in my heart i am an old man um and so i really appreciate you all being here today this is a product of many years of work i mean one of the public comments was going back to 2020 and how were we going to manage our waterways and what really stood out to me in 2020 is that unless you're on the water you don't understand our waterways and so um The Burke team here did a really amazing job of putting together the information about what happens on our waterways and all of the different parties that are involved because as somebody, who spend a lot of time on our waterways, both in the freshwater and on the saltwater, what stands out to me most is if you are driving...

In my district, for instance, if you're driving down to the Ballard Bridge and you're on Shillshole, all you see are walls and fences.

You don't realize that you're only 50 feet from the water.

And so if you are working on the waterfront, on the water side of that fence, you have a very different interaction with the waterway than...

if you drive 10 times in one day down Shell Shoal.

And so, you know, I'll turn it over to the team right now to do their presentation.

But what really stood out to me is that we have over 200 miles of coastline in our city.

We have agencies responding.

And I think that that's important because death happens, drownings happen quickly, situations turn bad very fast, and I've got an example later that I'll share.

And so it is not that we need fewer people or fewer different agencies working on our waterway.

It is actually that we likely need more.

We need them to be more coordinated And we can't, and just to be clear, we need full staffing of both SPD's Harbor Patrol and the Seattle Fire Department's teams.

And we need more because not every call is a medic call.

Not every call is a swimmer or boat in distress.

Not every call is criminal.

So it's that we need more and we need different types because having SPD or SFD respond to a noise complaint might not be the highest and best use of our resources.

Or at times doing educational campaigns is good, but we have higher needs for our folks here in the city family.

And so I'm maybe getting a little bit further into it.

I'm gonna turn it over to Burke to say that this is just a product that the conversation started in 2020. I believe we got funding in 2021, 2022. The team's been working for over a year on this.

And so this has been a really long time coming in it.

It's really exciting for me.

Well, excellent, and thank you for that.

And as Council Member Strauss was speaking, this briefing also will highlight reasons why we need to have a public safety element in our comprehensive plan and transportation efforts to the plan and levy as well.

And I should note that the waterfront, at least on the saltwater side, is well covered right here between District 6, 1, and 7. So with that, over to you.

And then the waterside, the inland waterside with District 3.

I got you.

Move this forward.

Fresh waters.

All right.

Well, good morning, Chair Kettle and members of the Public Safety Committee and Councilmember Strauss.

My name's Allegra Calder.

I'm a principal at Burke Consulting.

I'm joined by Ariel Shea, and I'm also really pleased to be joined by Lieutenant Kearns today.

We are really pleased to share the recent work on the waterways safety and did want to extend our thanks publicly to the many members of the Seattle Harbor Patrol and the Seattle Fire Department who supported this work.

They shared information and data with us, spent time with us to answer our questions and explain their roles and responsibilities, along with their experience and perspectives.

And we're also grateful to the many community members who spent time with us, including Eugene Wasserman, who's in the audience today.

The report obviously does have much more detail and we're happy to answer any questions that people may have related to that.

So I'm having a little trouble advancing the screen here.

Ah, there we go, excellent.

So we've talked a little bit about the study motivation.

I think another important point is that with the growing residential and visitor population, there has been an increased variety of activity on the waterways in Seattle, and this has created sort of new demand for patrols, emergency response assets, and coordination of the multiple activities that occur on these bodies of water.

As you'll hear in a moment, and we've discussed already, there are a lot of agencies with roles and responsibilities for waterway safeties, and it's critical to understand the differences and know that this extends well beyond the city.

So not everything that we'll share today is sort of in your purview.

We've also heard that the maritime industry is critical to Seattle in terms of revenue and jobs, but I think also to our identity.

And when you look at the map, you see a city that's surrounded on two sides by water with a river, a canal, and several interior lakes.

And this is fairly unique.

We didn't find a lot of cities that have a similar sort of maritime makeup with either similar needs or assets.

So our objectives with this study were to establish a baseline understanding of the current state of marine public safety to inform policymaking and investments in future resources and staffing.

Our research for this study was guided by a work group with city staff who we met with to discuss the study context and share our progress.

We interviewed many waterway stakeholders, including those from commercial, residential, and recreational groups.

We visited the Harbor Patrol Station on Lake Union, Fire Station 5, which is between Pier 54 and Coleman Dock, and the King County Sheriff's Marine Rescue Dive Unit office by Lake Washington.

With data from city agencies and public sources, we looked at trends in the volume of waterway activities and safety responses, and we also researched marine safety operations in peer cities.

No city is exactly like Seattle, but it was interesting to learn about practices in other cities such as the use of volunteer or unsworn officers.

We could not have done this study with desk research alone, and we are grateful to all who took the time to meet and speak with us.

Thank you.

During this study, we learned that there are many agencies within and outside the city with complimentary public safety roles on Seattle waterways.

Agencies within the city organization are the SPD Harbor Patrol Unit, shown in blue on the map.

The fire department has marine response assets at Fire Station 3 at Fisherman's Terminal, Fire Station 5, and Fire Station 36 in West Seattle.

Fire Station 5 is the home base for the fire boat unit, shown in orange.

In the summer, Seattle Parks and Recreation staffs lifeguards at the swimming beaches shown in pink.

Seattle Parks also staffs boat ramp rangers in the summer, and the park ranger program is expanding to provide patrols at downtown Seattle Parks.

Neighboring and regional agencies also have jurisdiction on Seattle waterways, such as Mercer Island and the King County Sheriff's Office.

In addition to the public agencies listed here, there are some private companies involved with waterway safety, such as vessel towing companies.

So with that overview, moving into some of the findings, we've alluded already that the waterways right now accommodate a wide variety of uses.

So the South Lake Union neighborhood in particular has experienced greater population growth than the rest of the city, with 10,000 new residents since 2010 and more units under construction.

During the pandemic, we may remember a real increase in recreational activity, and that subsided somewhat, but I would say stand-up paddle boards are very popular, and there are more services and ways to rent boats and watercraft than ever before.

Out on the Sound, we've added passenger ferry service alongside the cruise lines, cargo ships, sailing, and fishing boats, and we have float planes landing and taking off on Lake Washington and Lake Union, and significant commercial activity on the Ship Canal, the Duwamish, and in Elliott Bay.

This increase in users has led to many of those we interviewed to call for more safety education, particularly for recreational users who may be sort of first time or new users and unaware of regulations related to boat speeds, right of way, where they can anchor, or what safety equipment to have on board.

Currently, Harbor Patrol, Mercer Island Marine Patrol and King County Sheriff do spend time patrolling the waterways, providing a visible presence and enforcing voter regulations and making community contacts.

But I think the point has been made that more could be done before people even take to the water.

The current resources for emergency response and patrols are limited.

Calls for service are back up while staffing is lower than in the past for Harbor Patrol and obviously SPD overall.

The Seattle Fire Department noted that current response times to emergency calls on the freshwater areas are a safety issue and identified its greatest need as increasing waterside staffing with an additional fire boat crew.

This would allow one crew to remain at Station 5 on Elliott Bay and a second crew at a new Seattle Fire Department specific station ideally located near the south end of Lake Union.

Having a fire boat on Lake Union would speed up response time to fire incidents on that waterway as well as the Ship Canal, Portage Bay, and Lake Washington.

Aside from responding to the incidents that occur, interviewees from the commercial, industrial, and residential sectors noted that more proactive patrolling, which would require more staff, might help with prevention of theft, abandoned boats, and arson.

You heard in the opening comment there are reports of increased crime, and visible police presence might contribute to improvement in these measures by deterring crime and decreasing response times.

Harbor Patrol identified its greatest need as additional staff to increase patrol presence, as did many of the individuals and organizations consulted for this study, who, as has been mentioned, have good partnerships with Harbor Patrol.

Among our other findings we learned that there are multiple sources of data that track different harbor patrol activities.

Such as time spent on training boat maintenance patrols 911 dispatch response and responding to calls made directly to the harbor patrol phone line.

Each of these sources tracks activity that may not be captured in the others, which makes it hard to assess workload trends and resource needs.

Removal of derelict vessels was a common challenge we heard during interviews with public agencies.

There are several steps to properly dispose of a vessel so owners may instead abandon them, which creates pollution and navigational hazards.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources has a program in place to reimburse public agencies who step in, as well as a program for owners to turn in their vessels.

But even with these programs, there is a backlog of derelict vessels in the city.

On the slide is a picture of a derelict vessel at the Harbor Patrol Station, which we photographed during our visit in October.

We also heard that police and fire work effectively together during emergency responses.

However, there are existing MOUs that are over 20 years old and staff from both departments noted a need to clarify roles when both police and fire respond to an incident.

Can I ask a quick question on that slide?

I don't think it's...

On that first bullet, can you speak more to, like, what data is needed?

Who would be the provider of that data?

And how could that data be used?

Are you speaking specifically to the metric for Marine Police staffing?

Primarily, because that drives, ultimately it goes to staffing, but what kinds of data sets are you looking for to improve?

More specifics on that.

Chair, may I jump in just a little bit to help provide additional context?

So part of this study came from in 2020 asking for data regarding on water activity, how Harbor Patrol was responding, like how they were responding.

Was it criminal?

Was it non-criminal?

Was it on view?

Was it dispatched?

One of the biggest problems that we found that has to my understanding been rectified, but I'll double check again, which is in this report that people would call the Harbor Patrol directly on their city phone line and not call 911. And so the data was not logged.

So in 2020, 2021, when I was asking for information regarding, you know, what are your primary calls that you're responding to, it wasn't tracked.

Or it was tracked on paper that didn't make it into the computer.

And it's my understanding that this has been rectified.

I think it would be good for us to double check.

But it does not...

Well, fortunately, the head of the 911 call center is in the audience today, so she just gave a thumbs up.

So I'm taking that as a positive.

So thank you.

And I was just at Fire Station 25 recently, and there was the incident at University Bridge where an individual decided to jump off into the water.

So even on the fire side, capturing that data, which would be captured through the 911 system.

So basically what you're suggesting is, due to the problems in the past, Proper use of the 911 system now is capturing the data sets.

And I think it is worth us checking back in with the police department to ensure that people have stopped calling their direct line because while I know that more calls are coming into 911 rather than to their direct line, I don't know if that habit is continuing.

I guess another data set, and I'm not sure if...

I might be jumping ahead.

I'm just thinking about Kenmore Air.

I mean, they could probably make a report every day about intrusion in their taxiway runway system.

Is there a way to capture those kinds of pieces that don't necessarily rise to the 911 call?

Is that just engaging with outreach with businesses and the like?

I'd say largely for things like Kenmore Air.

We did speak to them about that.

I don't know if you have other thoughts on that one, but...

Okay.

Yeah, that largely doesn't get collected in the sort of public data.

You know, I think the other piece that is alluded to in that slide is just, again, because of the sort of unique nature of staffing on the waterways, there's still some discussion within the internal data team around what's the right metric for level of service when it comes to the waterways.

Is it population based on land?

Is it what's happening on the water?

And there's, you know, so that's, there's work still to be done there.

And that is something that their data team is focused on.

Okay.

All right.

Moving into recommendations.

Our first recommendation is around education for recreational users.

During interviews, we heard that education is one of the most valuable tools for incident prevention and mitigation.

Some ways to augment education include More signage and situational training modules.

Signs in multiple languages could reinforce speed limits and other regulations specific to an area.

Signs also protect life safety, as those unfamiliar with the area may be unaware of river currents or water temperatures.

And training modules could show users how to navigate crowded waterways, especially where there are commercial vessels, such as in the Port of Seattle area or the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

The city could explore the regular use of park rangers in the US Coast Guard Auxiliary to support safety education.

This picture shows the Washington State Vessel Inspection Form, which checks for life jackets, fire extinguishers, navigation lights, and other safety equipment on board.

While it is important for law enforcement to build relationships with the community, and safety education is one way to do so, other organizations can support as well.

Park rangers can also help to support noise ordinance enforcement, particularly in areas that are further from the Harbor Patrol Station, like Andrews Bay.

And the park rangers have really come about after the study, or at least the need for the study.

And was there coordination with parks?

Do we need to, do I need to engage with parks on that side, you know, to bring them in and see what's possible regarding park rangers?

I keep looking at my colleague since he was there when...

Chair, I think we are in unnavigated territory.

Okay.

I like the use of unnavigated.

Thank you very much.

Which is why it is so important that we're all working together on this.

The information that was summarized and these recommendations have not come before the city previously.

And so just as by way of context, park rangers were being set up They're expanded, I should say, at the same time that the study was happening.

When the study began, park rangers were not allowed to operate outside of downtown.

They are now.

We had two, we now have 34, or something to that degree.

I'll just say, in my life, Last week, I was driving by Golden Gardens and I saw the park rangers and I will say, I'm embarrassed to say this, but it's me.

I stopped and I got so excited that I talked to them.

Like, I just went and talked to them because I hadn't seen them up at Golden Gardens before.

And we have a lot of noise complaints at Golden Gardens.

You know, kids with their boom boxes.

And what struck me when reading this report is that Andrews Bay is a park And if the people who were, you know, using their boom boxes too loud on these boats were on land, a park ranger would be responding to them to say, please turn down the music.

And so that really struck me in an interesting way that, and I don't know what the mechanics are.

And I think, Chair, this is to your question.

I don't know what the mechanics are to say, do we need to put a...

put a park ranger on a boat?

Do we need to have somebody that comes by and picks up a park ranger?

These are questions that I don't have the answer to today.

What I do know is that the study has highlighted that as an issue and a potential solution.

So I think our work is to get it done.

who is chair of parks.

So I will work with her and I'm on that committee as well.

Um, and we'll, cause it's there, they are brand new and you're, you're, you're, everybody comes from their kind of focus, you know, D six golden garden.

I'm thinking about, um, South Lake Union Park, which is really, again, going back to Kenmore Square, and public education, you know, in terms of what the park rangers could do at South Lake Union Park, you know, where the MOHA is.

I think there's possibilities there.

So what's coming out of this, and this is a reason why we do this, is that we can have essentially an agenda item on a future committee meeting on the park ranger program where we can talk about, you know, these kind of cross-references and so forth.

And no need to, you know, you know, We chastised Councilmember Strauss for his repeated use of boombox, which is obviously from three decades ago, but we'll look past that.

And Ariel, could you go, sorry, may I, could we go back to the last slide?

I had something else here.

The improving recreational boater education with signage and situational training modules.

This is really helpful and important.

And when I was in college, I worked on one of these docks renting out.

I didn't do the renting, but I got people prepared to go out on the water.

So I did their safety module.

And what I can tell you is that when we're on the dock with somebody who's never been on a recreational paddleboard or kayak, They are trying to figure out how to buckle their life jacket.

Is their paddle the correct way?

Are the rudder straps in the right place?

Are they sure that their bag isn't going to fall into the water?

And so that's what's going through their mind as we're having the conversation about, please don't go into the seaplane landing zone.

The yellow buoys are out there to tell you when the seaplane is coming.

They don't hear that when they're on the dock.

And one thing that was important, and I appreciated in the study, is to say also having on-water education.

If, as a layperson also, I think of an oversized load on the freeway.

When you've got an oversized load on the freeway coming, you've got a lead car and a follow car that just have yellow lights, they're not for enforcement, they're simply for education, that there's a really big truck coming down the road.

And it seems common sense to me that we would have the same thing on Lake Union.

When a seaplane's landing, that right now we have buoys that flash, but if nobody knows what those buoys mean, we're not completing the mission.

And I think it would be prudent for the city to have, you know, it doesn't have to be a city-owned auxiliary unit or anything.

It could even be privately owned to just do that on-water education because when somebody's already on the water, they've figured out where their life jacket is, they've made sure that their snacks are safe, that's when they're ready to receive the information about staying out of the seaplane's way.

Thanks for letting me go on longer.

As we were discussing earlier, we do have some recommendations about data specific to Harbor Patrol.

We recommend a data informed approach to decisions about Harbor Patrol staffing.

There is a desire from the community for more Harbor Patrol officers, but as adding officers is a challenge given hiring and budget constraints, the city and Harbor Patrol should be transparent about levels of service that are possible with current staffing.

The city can use available data to understand the demand for Harbor Patrol services with the understanding that different data sources track different types of Harbor Patrol activity.

Data can help to show the impact of recent reductions in staffing or the impact of potential additional staffing.

Data can also help to decide how to use existing resources and where to ask partners for support.

An online data dashboard for Harbor patrol activity could also help with transparency and public awareness.

And finally, our final recommendations, we spoke already about the need for additional resources for Marine response for the fire department on Lake Union.

And this is actually tied to the department's desire to add a South Lake Union fire station, which would increase the level of service and response to the significant growth in both Belltown and South Lake Union, which is currently served by fire station two.

The Derelict Vessel Program we did talk about and it is a state level program but it takes significant city resources to address and it could be worth using some of the city's lobbying resources to advocate for stronger enforcement tools and additional state funding to address the fairly considerable backlog of boats here in the city of Seattle.

And then as noted, staff from both the departments, fire and police, did mention that they work well together, but that there is a need to clarify roles and responsibilities, and review of the existing settlement agreements and MOUs might be one way to do that.

We discussed establishing some sort of a venue where people could come together and potentially discuss issues like policies and practices, how to address emergent needs, opportunities for joint training.

And it was also raised that opening up these MOUs obviously could create some contract, union contract issues.

So we talked about maybe reviewing those and proposing sort of short-term and longer-term amendments that might be discussed.

And with that, that's a summary of what's in there, and we're happy to take any other questions.

Thank you.

I have a couple, but as usual at the end of a brief, I always turn to my vice chair and say, vice chair, any questions?

No, I appreciate the thoughtful conversation, the update here, and the discussion.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Good.

I'm sure Council Member Strauss has another question, but first, thank you very much.

And Lieutenant, I will ask you a question since you've been quiet, so I'll get you in here.

To the last point, it seems like, well, two things.

One is my father used to say, many hands make like work.

And there's many hands that have a hand in here.

I know this as a retired Naval officer.

As it turns out, my chief of staff was a former Marine.

COASTEE, COAST GUARDS OFFICER.

SO I HAVE SOME, ON MY TEAM, SOME UNDERSTANDING.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR WORK WITH SPD AND SFD, THINGS LIKE THE MANNING, THE STAFFING ISSUES, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE CAPACITY.

And I also know that there's coordination being done.

Is there anything from your perspective, like to hit on the point about the MOUs and the like is from your perspective, from the fire, what can be done, the low hanging fruit, the more difficult ones, what do you think from your perspective?

Well, I would say that...

And I'm sure Chief Scoggins will support anything and everything you say.

This has the power of the chief in it right now.

I would say that the MOUs in particular are something that we've discussed a number of times over the last 15 or so years.

I've been in the Marine Unit for 20 years now.

17 on the fire boats.

And so our interactions with harbor on incidents has continued to be good, I would say.

Our interactions are, a lot of times we come kind of from a different place as far as response styles and initial objectives, but our work together has been, hand in hand, has been really good.

Something that would help that continue and to improve even more would be to have those clarified MOUs.

Like was stated in the report, they haven't been updated for many years.

A lot of things have changed.

We've added resources.

As a matter of fact, the Seattle Fire is just getting ready to add resources down in South Lake Washington at the Leschi Marina.

We've got two rescue sea dudes that are going into service July 1st.

Our engine five will be responding from station five by the ferry terminal on an incident that requires Seattle Fire Department's presence on fresh water.

So they'll respond there.

The fire boat unit will respond to station three and take fire boats from Fisherman's Terminal and whatever resource gets there quicker will take initial actions.

But that'll be there to supplement the existing resources that Harbor has.

And so those MOUs will, update of the MOUs will be additionally important as we add that additional resource and interact more on the freshwater, so.

I appreciate that, and fortunately we have some senior leaders of the fire department behind you, so we'll work with them because in the old adage, you decide and delegate, and I think the idea of updating the MOUs, which will probably come back to you as an action item to work with your counterparts in the police department, but then also the coordination with the other agencies will be well served.

And to bring in the new entities, like the park rangers, I also like these slides because it reinforces the point that I've been saying again and again, that we need to have that public safety element in our comprehensive plan, the first bullet related to South Lake Union, but also with the transportation plan, because ultimately we can have these stations wherever they are, but their ability to get to where they need to be is key, and that's where the transportation point comes in.

You know, in terms of Vision Zero, you have accidents, but, you know, how do you account for if a person dies, you know, how is that counted?

And so we need to be mindful as respect to the transportation pieces, like how can, from Station 5, you know, fresh water, how can you get up and over?

All those kinds of pieces need to be thought out, and we need to have, again, going back to OneSeattle in a different way, bringing these pieces together to ensure that we do have that response capability.

So I really appreciate the briefing, because this will create some action items for us, which I think in the long run is going to help our public safety posture as it relates to our marine environment.

And that's very important across the board.

And the education piece is going to be key.

So that's going to be another angle because that's going to be outside the normal lanes of the public safety entities, you know, the nine elements that belong to this committee.

The education piece is going to really require something outside of our committee, you know, jurisdiction.

And so we need to have that coordination.

And starting with the MOUs, though, and understanding what we need.

you know, will be key.

So thank you very much.

I'll give Council Member Strauss the last word as a thank you for him starting this process before.

So Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to say this report, you can see all of the different markups that I've got in it of pieces of really useful information.

We didn't really even get into some of your best work was just identifying how, why this is important of we have, um, I'm just finding it now, commercial, residential, mortgage, cargo, tourism, seaplanes, and others, all using these over 200 miles of coastline here in our city.

And so, Chair, what I might ask is that we return to this issue.

discretion and maybe break it up into the chunks of what are these recommendations?

Because you also did a really good job of looking at other cities like Chelan, like Long Beach, like Los Angeles.

And there are some pretty good recommendations in here and ways that we could really improve the system.

But overall, I just want to say thank you.

And now it's on us to...

make sure that these recommendations get implemented.

Oh, don't worry.

We will be following up on this report.

And obviously, MOUs are going to be close or not at the top of the list, because that process in itself will be revealing.

So thank you again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

We will now move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read the short title of item three into the record?

CB120799, an ordinance relating to street racing, adding the crime of racing, adding the traffic infraction of vehicle participation in unlawful racing, briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

We're going to start off with Mr. Johnson from the central staff.

But we're also being joined by, the rest of the team can come up too.

So we have City Attorney Ann Davison.

We'll let everybody introduce themselves.

And Assistant Chief Dan Nelson.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, Mr. Johnson, good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

I am Tommaso Johnson, Council Central Staff Analyst.

I'm here to provide a brief overview and background on Council Bill 120799, addressing illegal racing.

This bill would fundamentally do two things.

The first is create a new traffic infraction of $500 for the registered owner of a vehicle participating in an unlawful race event.

unlawful race event in this ordinance is defined to mean an event on a street, alleyway, way open to the public or off street facility where in persons willfully one, compare or contest relative speeds by operation of one or more motor vehicles or two, demonstrate, exhibit or compare speed, maneuverability or the power of one or more motor vehicles in a straight or curved direction, a circular direction, around corners, or in circles in an activity commonly referred to as drifting or by braking traction.

As I said before, this infraction, $500 infraction, would apply to the registered owner of this vehicle.

There are exceptions to this in the case of a vehicle that can be proven to be stolen or to be a rental car.

This infraction may be pursued through video evidence.

The other thing that the bill would do is to incorporate, by reference, changes to the revised Code of Washington made in 2023 via Senate Bill 5606 that went into effect on January 1 of this year.

The RCW incorporation would add various definitions related to the crime of illegal racing, and it would make illegal racing a reckless driving offense punishable by a gross misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 364 days in jail or a fine of up to $5,000.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Okay, City Attorney Davison.

Hi, and thank you for having us.

I'm joined by my Deputy Criminal Chief, Jim Kenney, and also by Assistant Chief Dan Nelson from Seattle Police Department.

And today, so thank you for that introduction of what the legislation says.

Good to see you, Council Member Hollingsworth and Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle for having us.

So today we do wanna talk about providing some additional legal tools for the city so we can address the rise in the street takeover events that have sadly been escalating even as recent as just a couple of days ago.

And that is really a significant impact as you were talking about transportation and issues that are important across the city road safety is should be included in that public safety definition in my opinion that is for all users of our roadways from pedestrian cyclists other drivers etc so to have these street takeovers in the form of races or drifting or all these expanded definitions that the RCWs now provide for, I think are very important for us to incorporate here as a city.

In the past several years, these events have increased the public safety and health hazard in a very nuisance way, but also in addition, just a complete danger that we have had.

This last weekend, a pedestrian was critically injured and another person was shot.

Last year, a young woman was shot and killed on Capitol Hill at a street racing event.

And so unfortunately, we know that with our understaffing at Seattle Police, we have to be smart in how we address this.

So by using a different way of getting to people who allow their vehicles to be there and participate, that's what we want to try to deter is people to participate and go and watch because we need to have our laws matter.

And our laws are about keeping public order and the public spaces safe.

And these events are hampering that.

So that's why I've introduced this bill and added the civil infraction of that penalty.

So we will go through and have the problem described by Assistant Chief Nelson and what Seattle Police Department are having to face and confront when these events take place.

And then we will have, again, my Deputy Chief, Jim Kenney, who will talk through the proposed tools that we've provided for council to review and hopefully vote and approve on so that we can have some responsiveness to those events.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Kettle and members of the Council.

And thank you for allowing me to provide my perspective regarding the public safety impacts of these street racing events.

Over the last couple years, managing street racing events to ensure public safety has presented a significant challenge.

These events garner large crowds of attendees due to advertising on various social media platforms, which are then re-shared exponentially, creating large masses of people attending these events.

SPD has responded to significant violent crimes associated with these straight racing events to include multiple homicides, traffic collisions resulting in serious injuries, some of which include or involve uninvolved pedestrians.

And these events represent dynamic crowd management incidents.

Additionally, Our current staffing limitations impact our efficacy in responding to pop-up street events.

These are the events that we are not aware of in advance, while also balancing a need for 911 response to in-progress life safety emergencies.

This last Saturday was a good event.

I was there with my team.

Give all credit to them.

They did an amazing job managing these events, but The first event was noted down off of, in the 1100 block of Alaskan Way, there was upwards of 100 vehicles in a private parking lot, revving engines with a loud noise.

The team was out, and we started targeting reckless driving, people driving without visible license plates, no lights on, various infractions.

We started doing targeted enforcement, and that really drove a change in behavior of the other attendees.

We actually saw people reattaching a license plate to their vehicle before they left the parking lot.

So as that event was winding down, we started getting intel of a different event.

MLK Jr.

Way South and South McClellan Street.

It was described as a takeover type event where participants were pulling signs into the street, lighting off fireworks.

My team responded to the area, again, began taking law enforcement actions.

Resultant of that, one person was shot, was ultimately dropped up at Harborview by somebody else.

We made an arrest for eluding, where someone was leaving the area at a high rate of speed.

Ultimately, we were able to catch and hold her accountable.

A community member was struck by a fleeing motorist.

It was a hit and run.

Significant injuries, including, you know, I'll just leave it at that, significant injuries.

Then the group moved to 2nd Southwest and Southwest Michigan Street.

Again, respond to the area.

The participants in the activity fled in a relatively organized manner, but they got out of the space.

And then the group moved on to block the 1st Avenue South Bridge that was preventing northbound traffic into the city.

Again, all of these types of incidents represent different levels of significant public safety issues.

And it's my belief that this new infraction will provide SPD an effective alternative enforcement tool that will discourage attendance at these events.

And what we like about the proposed legislation is that it allows post incident enforcement.

So we can have our officers respond to the higher priority incidents, the life safety related issues during the incident, and still provide follow up for the attendees after the incident's over.

I think overall it will have a good impact on reducing the level of these street racing events in the city.

Yeah, and so we prepared our SPD public affairs group, pulled some video from, it's kind of a montage of clips from this last weekend, as well as other street racing events.

Bye.

Bye.

That BMW has no plates.

Is it a black one or a green one?

There was a red one that was red.

This red Nissan has no plates.

Stop.

Stop.

Back up.

Back up.

Oh my god.

Oh my god.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we'll now go to my Deputy Criminal Chief, Jim Kenney, who will go through the proposal so we can be responsive to those types of events as a city.

Thank you, and good morning, Chair Kettle and members of the committee.

Our first slide deals with the adoption of the state law, adoption by reference, and that's located in Section 6 of the bill.

The reason to adopt the crime of racing under the RCW, which is 4661 530, is that it is a slightly larger or broader definition than the current definition of racing under the Seattle Municipal Code.

So the proposal is to adopt some definitions and the crime.

So we start with the definition of drifting in RCW 4604 1641 and then off street facility, which is essentially a parking lot.

in 4604.367.

The actual crime itself is located at 4661.530, which is racing.

And as I indicated, it's a little bit broader than the definition currently in the code.

We also adopt 4661-741, which, although it's entitled racing impoundment, it actually deals with racing forfeiture.

And their forfeiture, the new state law for forfeiture essentially allows for a second offense that if the person is convicted of racing, the vehicle can be forfeited to the police department, but not for a first offense.

Not listed in Section 6 and part of the bill, but noted on the PowerPoint slide, is RCW 4655-113 and 4655-360.

Both of those had amendments that actually, in the new state law, that deal with forfeiture, but they're not included in the bill because RCW 4655 is already adopted by reference in Seattle Municipal Code 1130-030.

What those two portions of the state law do is they allow for, if somebody is arrested by the police for racing, the vehicle is impounded for 72 hours and the person can be impounded for 72 hours and the person cannot pick up the vehicle for 72 hours at the tow yard.

So we're not...

asking to place that in the bill because it's already adopted into Seattle Municipal Code.

Those are the portions related to the crime of racing.

And what we've been talking about now is the new infraction entitled, and for a new section of the Seattle Municipal Code 1158-440, vehicle participation in unlawful racing.

The proposal is that this is a infraction with a base penalty of $500.

I think we're actually ready for the next slide.

There we go.

Base penalty of $500, and it applies to the registered owner of a vehicle used in connection with an unlawful race event.

The issue is trying to hold responsible those individuals whose vehicles are used in these events.

And the key point is that it can be detected or the evidence can include a video used by the police department.

The typical types of video would be in-car video.

police body-worn video, and potentially other video that the police department has, but not including traffic safety camera video from the automatic traffic safety cameras because those have specific requirements from RCW 4663-170 that we don't want to essentially interfere with, so that camera footage would not be available for this infraction footage.

Can you speak to that a little bit more in terms of, so what you're saying, kind of what the assistant chief was saying that instead of putting the officers in danger at the moment, we can go back after the fact and do it any more measured.

and responsible way, because as you saw with the video, there could be times where there's dozens of individuals who are essentially risking themselves in a Russian roulette kind of way, you know, in terms of, you know, going after the fact and doing it responsibly.

Is there any factors, considerations that we need to know about that, or is it pretty straightforward in terms of the kind of the after fact?

pursuit of justice in this?

It's really about another tool in the toolbox for that after the fact type of alternative.

The police officers in person could still take action, but as you can see, it's difficult to respond.

The racers race away, run away when the police arrive.

So it's just hard to stop and identify these individuals.

With the use of video after the fact, particularly for vehicles, the vehicle license plate, and then being able to then know through the State Department of Licensing who is the registered owner is really the key to the enforcement, potential enforcement.

of the of the infraction.

So two points there.

Can I just say, as we would clearly know, this is the smart way to use the resources that we do have so that even though we might have an understaffed Seattle Police Department, we still could be responsive and say that this is our law and they matter and we will enforce them in strategic and smart ways that are supplementing the officers in person.

And as an example, this last weekend when I was out, I was simply narrating to my my video going on in my car.

you know, this is license plate here.

And so we create a record.

So then later after the event, when things have calmed down and everything, the public safety issues have been addressed, we now have a way to go through systematically and issue those citations.

So two things I want to highlight.

One is we just passed the ALPR.

You know, and that's going to be so supportive in many different ways with all its protections to include the, you know, the privacy concerns and the like that we have using our accountability partners, for example.

But it's going to help in situations like this when somebody is clearly breaking state law as we're seeing in this presentation.

Second question or...

is we've had some individual circumstances previously to like what we're seeing like last weekend.

And so important was the constituents and the individuals in our community who came forward to not just to the SPD West Precinct and others, but to our office with their video and audio evidence.

How can that be used?

How is that useful to get evidence from the community in terms of like video or audio?

Yes, as long as that's provided to the police department, the police department can consider that and use that as evidence.

The police department would need to vet it, but as long as it comes, you know, is provided to the police department, it then can become part of the process.

Excellent.

Well, it's part of the motivation.

You know, one of the things in terms of working with the community that I've had, and Assistant Chief, you've probably seen the same thing, they want to know that it's making a difference.

And so, you know, like this law, you know, these kind of actions, you know, shows that, you know, we're taking it for action.

So what they're doing is helpful, and it's helping themselves, which is very key.

So thank you for that.

All right, continue, please.

And then I would just conclude by saying there is a process to deal with rental cars and individuals that have rented from rental companies, and there's also an exception for stolen vehicles, if somebody has had their vehicle stolen and then is caught up in an unlawful race event.

The infraction itself is treated like a parking infraction.

Not included in the bill is dealing with spectators, and if there's any interest in dealing with spectators, the Kent City Code deals with spectators in their Chapter 9.42.

They criminalize the activity of spectators at unlawful race events, and so if there was any interest in the council regarding spectators, That might be something to consider legislatively.

Kent criminalizes it as a misdemeanor, but there may be also some consideration to have it be an infraction.

Some of the issues related to spectators that's a little different than registered owners is that just based on video, making the identification of bystanders is much more difficult than the registered owner of a vehicle where you have the video of the car license plate.

But it is something that Kent has done, and so something possibly for consideration.

Okay, great.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, as usual, as you heard me before, and you're in the audience, I always turn to my Vice Chief, Vice Chief Saka.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, City Attorney Davidson, Assistant Chief Tommaso.

Appreciate the very insightful and, to be honest, very troubling presentation on the current state of things with respect to racing and I think it's very clear from my perspective, there is a huge opportunity that we have to do better for our community, do better and set a signal that this Seattle will always be a safe place and safe space for those that wanna respect our community and enjoy all the terrific things that we have to offer.

But we need to take stronger action in shutting down some of these kind of dangerous, unsafe, behaviors involving vehicles.

And I think this is a good first step, this proposed piece of legislation.

So I applaud and appreciate your leadership in bringing this forward.

I already know offhand, I think there's some things that I'll want to propose to make it even that much better In any event, I have a lot of questions.

I don't even know where to start, but this is really, like, I guess first and foremost, the last thing that was mentioned was Kent's, the city of Kent's code that governs spectators as part of their street racing ordinance.

And yes, there is interest in that.

And these are...

The challenges we're facing here in Seattle, yes, they're localized Seattle specific implementations, but they are broader challenges shared by our entire region and state.

And so we need to look to what has worked for, in this case, Kent.

So I will personally be calling up Mayor Dana Ralph, a friend of mine and a fellow Kent Meridian High School alum, and figuring out how they approach this issue.

But there is interest, at least from one council member, on better addressing spectators as part of this, because we've seen a lot of challenges in Alki, in other parts of the city.

We've seen spectators in that video from Assistant Chief.

Thank you for sharing that.

Really disappointing to see the...

the disrespectful conduct and flagrant violations, people flouting known existing city laws.

And so, look, we need to do better as a city to take stronger action and shut down this kind of thing.

People are literally dying.

That's unacceptable.

So again, I have a bunch of questions.

I don't know where to start, but maybe, okay.

Assistant Chief, so again, thank you for the work from you and your team on addressing, like being the frontline of sort of this work on the enforcement side.

You mentioned an example of, Well, there's a lot of people, apparently, without registered, with unregistered cars and tags and fake and phony license plates, whatever it is, and right after we, apparently, we initiated some sort of enforcement action, people, lo and behold, magically started fixing the proper documentation and evidence.

So I guess my question is, I just wanna better understand the scope and magnitude of what's going on here.

Because License plates, false, expired license plates.

One, we know that they're often used in crimes, smash and grabs, whatever it is, and any number of things.

And two, you know, I read a really interesting New York Times article a few months ago that municipalities and localities across the country are taking stronger action to shut that kind of thing down because some of those reasons that I mentioned, people are using those cars in crimes amongst other things.

So I guess I would just love to just better understand in Seattle, how big is that problem exactly of expired tags, false tags, whatever it is?

Expired tags is a moderate problem for us here in the city.

I think it's important to note that having false tags or just having no tags on your cars is a big problem, especially as it relates to street racing events.

As it was noted earlier, this is a regional issue.

There are, we do work with our partners and other law enforcement agencies up and down I-5.

As these events kind of cruise up We get reports, you know, they'll stop in at a restaurant and everyone starts taking their license plates off before they come to the city.

So that is going to be a challenging thing we're going to have to overcome, specifically related to enforcing this in the city of Seattle.

And those would be those opportunities because there would not be a way for us to, after the fact, you know, issue tickets or citations for that.

So those would be...

stops that we would prioritize so we actually could identify who the drivers of those vehicles are.

And again, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, we were successful this last weekend in making an eluding arrest.

And so it's just going to be continuing to do more of the same on that.

We are, again, approaching our, redefining our approach to these types of events as more of a crowd management event.

I mean, they are directly related to traffic safety, but it is a mass gathering of people who are there doing an activity.

So we are re-exploring how we're choosing to approach that, which could inform some better responses downrange.

Thank you.

And I guess my next question pertains to some of the specific RCWs called out.

And part of this proposed law, as I understand it, is intended to adopt and incorporate, potentially by reference, recent changes to state law.

And so just to kind of level set, because it wasn't immediately clear from the summary and fiscal note that I read and even the the bill, but just to level set, I guess, going back to your slide three on adoption of the new state law on each one of those individual RCWs, for my benefit and potentially benefit of members of the public, can you just kind of describe briefly what each of those, I know what the title is, drifting, for example, but can you provide some more clarity and color around what the Specific types of actions and behaviors.

Each of these respective RCWs are intended to punish or prohibit.

What is drifting exactly?

Parking lot context.

What is that?

Yeah, some additional clarity around that would be helpful from my perspective.

Thank you.

Sure.

So RCW 4604-1641 defines drifting, and drifting means a driver intentionally oversteering a vehicle, causing a loss of traction while maneuvering a vehicle in a turning direction.

And an example of that was on the video that we saw of the vehicles that are essentially spinning around in the street.

And that's a version of drifting that would be included as part of the crime of racing.

The violation of racing can occur on a public street, but the RCW also includes, makes it a crime to do it in a off street facility, which means a parking lot.

So that if there's a takeover of a parking lot or a parking garage, and this type of drifting or racing occurs in that facility, that would also be a crime, even though it's not a public street, assuming it's a private parking lot or garage.

But the key portion of the crime is RCW 46, 61530, which defines the crime of racing, and the traditional definition, which it includes, is willfully comparing or contesting relative speeds between two vehicles.

The additional piece that's new in the law and why essentially we should adopt it and essentially updates.

It includes also then drifting, the type of drifting that we saw in the video.

And that's what actually makes, that is the actual crime.

The penalty for it is not changing.

It's a gross misdemeanor.

punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.

It does carry a mandatory minimum 30-day license suspension through the Department of Licensing.

And the crime, of course, we charge in Seattle Municipal Court and the Municipal Court judges have then discretion of what to impose up to the maximum that I just described.

The last two RCWs that I note on that screen are not being incorporated because they're already incorporated through SMC 113030, related to forfeiture.

The 72-hour hold, essentially for anybody who's arrested for racing.

So kind of in a nutshell, that's the definition of those items.

No, very helpful.

Thank you for helping to level set that.

Really, really, really helpful.

So my next question pertains to, then I'll, then I note at least, so Council Member Hollingsworth has a question as well.

So I'll pause after this and then I'll pass the baton.

But my next question in this line is, pertains to the use of video evidence.

And can you provide some, like as a practical matter, could you provide some specific concrete examples of video evidence that could potentially be used in this case?

Are we talking a TikTok video, social media video, video captured by a neighbor on their own device that they haven't uploaded to YouTube?

social media, for example.

Like, what are the specific types of video that are contemplated, video evidence that are contemplated by this?

I also note, part two of this question is, I also note that the statute explicitly excludes and carves out automated traffic safety cameras as part of that evidence.

So, would love to better understand why.

What's the rationale there?

So...

Practical examples of video evidence, and why do we explicitly carve out automated traffic safety?

Thank you.

Section 5 of the bill with the new infraction specifically calls out SPD-generated video, which would most likely be in-car video and from the patrol cars and also a body-worn video from officers that would be actually on foot.

It could also include police officers will sometimes use their own cell phones.

cell phone video that they generate, but it could also include other video from social media, some perhaps taken by the racers themselves or participants, other social media video.

The qualification to that is that SPD would have to have the video before it could be used.

And to some extent, you know, SPD will need to determine, you know, does it apply?

Is it relevant?

So there's at least some degree of vetting there regarding the video.

So it has to come through SPD or be provided to SPD.

But that's what's envisioned by the various forms of video that could be used.

And the infraction has to be issued by an officer.

So an officer is going to have to review it to make sure that it actually shows a violation that can be shown in court.

The carve-out for automated traffic safety cameras is that the video generated by those cameras, and those cameras are used for some red light enforcement at intersections, for HOV lane violations.

They're going to be used more for speed violations.

There's a specific revised code of Washington.

It's 4663.170 that governs the use, governs those infractions and the use of the video from those particular video devices.

And it's very specific.

It has requirements regarding how the video is taken, how it's kept, the division of the penalty from it.

There's a revenue sharing with the state.

And the use of that video is governed by the RCW.

So we're concerned that if that video is used for this, it essentially bleeds over into that process, and it really needs to stay separate from that so that that's not used.

And this was going to just focus on SPD-generated video or video provided to SPD, but not the automatic traffic safety camera video.

So I would ultimately defer to your wise legal judgment on that, but I'd just be curious.

So, and it does make sense that because automated enforcement video technologies can cover, they can cover HOV violations, they can cover school zone infractions, they can cover, they can also cover speeding.

And so like, So I guess, can you just help me understand why if it can cover speeding and an officer using his judgment is able to see two or more cars racing down a specific thoroughfare where there's already an automated speeding camera set up, like they couldn't leverage that video and say, and in addition, that wouldn't be subject to this new proposed ordinance as well.

Well, technologically, of course, those automatic traffic safety camera video could cover it.

The issue is the state law doesn't provide for it.

RCW 4663-170 has very specific types of offenses, infractions.

And this proposed infraction for an unlawful race event is not included in there.

Mm-hmm.

it might be possible to go to the legislature and ask them to authorize it, but it would take a change to the state law to incorporate it.

This is a city, a local infraction.

It doesn't conflict with any state infractions.

The city is free to adopt it and enforce it.

But because of the language in that RCW related to automatic traffic safety cameras, And it's very specific.

It's only for the things in there.

Unless this new infraction was added to that list, it doesn't apply.

And so our concern is the video is only for those things in the automatic traffic safety camera legislation.

This isn't one of them.

Unless the legislature brought it in, it's out, and we want to make sure that the video is separated.

Got it, so there's a specific list of authorized things that the RCW covers and this currently isn't one of them today.

And if it's not in that list, you can't do it basically, which makes sense.

But I do think, and this is something that I would substantially defer to the executive departments, SPD and the city attorney in terms of implementing and enforcing.

If you all had a point of view and develop one and think it makes sense, To go to Olympia and advocate and lobby for this change and to add another arrow in the quiver, I guess, hey, I'd be curious to hear that.

But in any event, thank you.

Great.

Appreciate it.

The list for Olympia gets longer.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for presenting this legislation.

And I've seen people street race on Capitol Hill, Lake Washington Boulevard.

I live on 23rd, street racing constantly up and down 23rd.

Just a month ago, someone was racing and decided to shoot all the way down 23rd from...

you know, East John into North Capitol Hill and Mott Lake.

And officers responded very, very quickly.

But, you know, it was just like, you know, bullets can go through somebody's window, which they have.

And, you know, people, it was like 2, 3 a.m., But I wanted to really support this, looking forward to adding another piece in the toolbox for our officers.

But I had a quick question, Assistant Chief Nelson, could you walk us through, and I might have missed it, I apologize, so you might have to repeat it, One of the videos showed, hey, here's a, you know, people doing street racing or donuts.

Can you talk about how you're going to enforce that?

Is it you're writing a ticket on the spot?

Are they getting it in the mail?

Like just that piece so I can just better understand that.

And I hope I didn't miss that.

No, that's great.

It really depends.

So when we're responding to these dynamic incidents, we really have to triage what are the immediate life safety issues and what are some other things we can do after the fact.

What's tricky with enforcing these things, because they often use their vehicles to create a blockade around the actual donating or the drifting or that stuff.

So it's hard for officers to get in there.

Given the dynamic nature of the vehicles, doing what they're doing in the roadways, it's unsafe to approach on foot because you can get hit by a car.

And so that's where this legislation is good because we can make note of all, again, on our body-worn videos, we can make note of all the license plates as we're moving in.

And I also had mentioned that we're going to shift the way we respond in our philosophy on these events to more of a crowd management style event.

which would include the use of our POET team, our police outreach and engagement team, engaging with the participants and onlookers, say, hey, this is not okay behavior.

These are our expectations moving forward.

These are the penalties if you continue to be here as part of a response.

So we're doing our education while we're still doing enforcement and prioritizing what needs to be taken care of at the moment.

It's a little muddy of an answer, but I hope that answers your question.

No, it does, especially the education piece, because I'm assuming people come to Seattle to do it because we don't have particular laws that prevent some of this from happening.

So the education piece is important, why this is happening.

And then one time I saw, and it was, I can't remember the video particularly, but I saw how people were laughing at officers because it felt like they couldn't do anything.

Just like, just that type of behavior where, you know, I've seen it all the time, but I know particularly sometimes in these incidents when you have this crowd and it's hard to be able to access stuff, is it going to be a challenge to, like, what is the educational piece, you know, gonna look like?

Is the officers telling people, hey, this is inappropriate, we're gonna go ahead and, you know, you can get fined for being here.

Like, how does that outreach, How would that take place?

Yeah, so that video highlights the importance of, you know, stopping and staging and coming up with a tactical plan before engaging, especially a mass gathering like this.

so you don't end up on an island by yourself, kind of isolated from everybody else.

But again, it'll be multi-phased.

This last Saturday, we had our public announcement system ready to go, so we can give wide-sweeping, loud, and clear public announcements outlining, you know, this is okay, this is not okay.

Again, overlay that with our POET teams on foot, engaging with people, saying, hey, this is not okay.

You need to put your license plate back on your car, or you'll be subject to...

penalties or traffic stops and different things like that while we're, again, constantly assessing like what are the things we need to take care of and again unfortunately these events you'll have different groups so you'll have intergroup conflict emerge from these and that's ultimately results in shootings and things like that so it's a multi it's a very complicated these events again represent a significant public safety risk because it's so it's so dynamic and there's a lot of different layers to it understood thank you thank you uh

Thank you for the questions.

I just, you know, two questions before closing.

One is I really appreciate the crowd management point.

You know, this is like security risk management, you know, understanding, you know, where you are and what you can do and what's best not to do.

Crowd management, as you know, we're under the consent decree.

Crowd management has generally got another context, so this is a new context.

And I'm just wondering, I think it's great that you're doing it, but, you know, how is it being incorporated as a, you know, under the consent decree?

You know, is it like a separate, you know, paragraph?

Is it, you know, a separate, you know, piece?

Or is it kind of the overall crowd management effort?

Is it broken out?

Can you speak to that part?

Yeah, it's a relatively new philosophy, but we have a very well-defined crowd management policy and a CMIC crowd management matrix.

And that informs...

the different iterations we do when we're engaging with a large crowd that is engaged in unlawful behavior.

Again, we lead with warnings and public announcements and education.

And then we're going to try to isolate and hold accountable the violators, the people who are choosing not to obey the laws and differentiate them from the crowd.

So we're not criminalizing the entire crowd.

That goes more into the demonstration-related stuff, but again, goes into the prioritization of getting the bad actors slash people engaged in imminent life safety issues first, and then ultimately brings in different tools as far as dispersals.

One of the things we talked about at Capitol Hill last year we ran into is they took over the street and we couldn't, as officers were trying to move into the crowd, they were being rebuffed by the crowd and they were swinging skateboards and they were doing all kinds of stuff.

So integrating our, you know, proven crowd management tactics and philosophies to, again, target those who are violating the law and while engaging and communicating with the group, I think would have been a, would have informed much better results in that incident.

Great.

Um, the other question I had too is, and this is a little bit broader question is that, you know, obviously in the video we saw like Elliot and Western, we have broad arterials.

You talk about I-5 and so forth.

I mean, That's ample area and so forth.

But we also have been having this in specific areas.

I'm thinking about Alki.

I'm thinking about, you know, West Seattle, where we may be able to take measures like working with SDOT to kind of change things up.

You know, the parking lot, you know, piece, like, you know, how people, how the roads are structured.

Mindful that we have to have first responders be able to respond, fire, and so forth.

But maybe there's some...

measures that can be put in place that can deter the street racing, the donuts, the fishtailing, the drifting, all the different words you can ascribe to it.

Is that something that you've seen from your practical experience that we may be, you know, hey, this would be an area that we can do something?

Absolutely.

And I need to bring up some points from earlier in the previous discussion is bringing parks in on this.

I know one of the issues is the Don Armini boat ramp.

That's a very popular spot for these groups to coalesce and kind of get together and hang out.

You know, having a different bullard that blocks, you know, in the hours when it's closed would prevent access by these groups into the parking lots so they couldn't coalesce.

But yeah, there's a lot of things we could do.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And, you know, I'm thinking about this because, you know, we have a great bill in front of us.

We will have some recitals for it, which I'll kind of speak to next.

But this might be something, Mr. Johnson, maybe we can work with parks, for example.

Some of the nontraditional elements of the public safety committee, again, kind of going back to the earlier maritime safety point.

and see, I don't know, if there's anything that we can add, even as a recital, a whereas, that can kind of guide, you know, future action, that might be very helpful.

Um, so, uh, thank you very much.

Um, and thank you all for attending Mr. Johnson from central staff, the city attorney's team, you know, cause it's not just you, it's the, you know, it's a, it's a big team behind you.

So thank you very much for, for your work and for the team's work and for assistant chief Nelson across the board.

It's not, it's your team, but it's also the various precinct teams and the like, and this is hard.

And this is the reason why we're doing this because we need to be able to you know, address what is street racing is a major concern.

We've seen it ourselves.

As Council Member Hollingsworth, I've seen it.

We've all seen it ourselves.

And we've been hearing from our constituents again and again and again.

And that kind of goes to my earlier question.

We have to acknowledge that.

and that concern and what they've seen, and then bring them part of the process, because that's part of the solution.

This has got to be a team Seattle solution here.

It can't be just SPD.

It can't be just the city attorney and the like.

And to do so, so thank you, by the way, to all our neighborhood...

Oh, Vice Chair Saka, did you have a...

Oh, of course, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'll just close out my...

my kind of self-reflections and questions as well that I had from earlier.

So, The one, first, I just want to emphasize the importance of the crowd management piece and how those can turn into larger public safety challenges.

If I recall the specific facts of the case correctly from May, I believe, of 2023, there was a man who tragically lost his life at Whaletail Park in Elk High near the sandbox where Sadly, I mean, one of my kids lost their tooth.

And this is a place where families generally go to congregate, recreate, share company and fellowship with communities and each other.

And again, this was just a little more than a year ago.

And if I recall correctly, that started from a TikTok challenge, street takeover type event.

And then we saw the result.

So this bill, this proposed bill right here is timely, it's important, and it's impactful.

So like I said, I do look forward to taking a closer look at it and potentially make it even better.

And also, I will note that City Attorney Davidson, appreciate your collaboration and partnership.

One of my last meetings, I think my last meeting Office meeting of the day on Friday, 4 or 4.30, was directly with you.

And great, we check in regularly.

It was predicted that, hey, it's a nice day out.

Unfortunately, not a good formula.

It's the end of school, not a good formula.

Hope nothing bad happens tonight.

And tragically, something bad happened that night.

at four or in the morning rather, 4 a.m.

Right near Don Armine Park, known challenge area.

Hint, there's no good that can come from anyone congregating in a parking lot in mass at 3 a.m.

or whatever it is.

And just north of that in Duwamish Head, where communities have been demanding better designs and actions from a public right-of-way and roads perspective to potentially help mitigate and minimize some of these impacts.

Look, someone was tragically shot and killed, murdered.

Someone else was wounded by gunfire and hospitalized.

I don't know.

right now, the current state of that individual.

Two of my constituents, at least two that I'm aware of, had their nearby homes struck by gunfire.

And so...

this, so that was a very prescient a conversation that we had, City Attorney Davidson, and this bill is very timely as well.

We need to do better for communities, not just Elk High, but this is a shared challenge and shared opportunity across the city.

And it's unclear right now, based off the facts of this kind of evolving dynamic case, the shooting, the murder on Saturday morning, whether racing was involved or wasn't involved, But regardless, we do know that that specific point in Duwamish Head and Don Armani Park is often a launching point for starting, initiating racing.

It's also a known post-race rally point as well.

And so we need to do better.

And I think this is an important tool to help us do exactly that.

I guess, City Attorney Davidson and your team, would you help me better understand the...

The fine amount, what specific factors went into the proposed fine amount of $500 here?

Well, first, can I just commend you Council Member Saka on your passion and conviction for our community.

It's very moving to me personally, and I just really wanna thank you.

You don't represent my district, but you help make the city better with your leadership.

So I really do appreciate it.

We operate under the assumption of a social contract.

We individually get privileges and benefits from our laws.

The obligation in turn is our collective following of our laws because we need to all live in close proximity of one another.

So we should be saying upon ourselves, it's my responsibility to comply with the law so that my neighbor does the same so we can have a safer space.

It's easier if we do it that way than if we have to do all this, but we do all this.

So I just wanted to thank you for that.

And then the amount is one that we took into account.

We had discussions.

We decided it was something that could be meaningful, hopefully a deterrent, not excessive, but certainly a message of if you go and you participate, even as a spectator, you are encouraging this behavior that is dangerous and is harmful to the public and individuals can get hurt.

And it could be you next time.

So you should not show up so that people who want to show off in this way And by showing a video that they somehow have power and influence, that no, we actually have more together, you shouldn't show up, and we're gonna say here's a fine for you after the fact, because we don't want that to be encouraged, we want safety encouraged.

But Jim, if there's any more that you wanna add for that?

Okay.

No, thank you, City Attorney Davidson, and I appreciate your kind words, but more importantly, I appreciate the partnership and collaboration and commitment that you've shown to, you know, this is, it's not just me, It's not just me and my colleagues.

It's me, my colleagues, the city attorney's office, the executive department, mayor, it's the courts.

It is working collaboratively with our regional partners because these aren't...

like matters of first impression to Seattle only, like there's opportunities for partnership and collaboration.

And, you know, this is a good forcing function to help us, this bill right here to help us continue that down that path.

Any sense, either City Attorney Davidson or Tommaso, how this proposed fine amount stacks against other bills comparable legislation in other nearby jurisdictions in Washington?

Is it sort of about in line with that?

A little higher, a little lower?

Any initial impression of that right now?

as an infraction.

Yeah.

We're the first to do with the infraction piece.

So that's why there's not a comparison.

We've just looked at what would be something to start with, right?

So again, your input, you know, especially appreciate, you know, council member Hollingsworth, you know, in your neighborhood, right?

And it's disruptive, right?

People are having their families.

It's not an hour.

It's always at that hour that it's, again, not something productive that's happening.

People are trying to get ready for their next day of what they need to do.

And so that's where we started because it's the first of it.

And I totally agree with you.

We do not want to be a destination.

People seek out to come for this activity, nor do we want to send it to our municipal neighbors.

But we got to start somewhere.

So I decided...

I'm going to start it, right?

Because it's clearly dangerous.

It's clearly something that's not good for the common good.

And so that's where we're at.

So if you have input on it, happy to listen and work on that.

But that's where we started.

Thank you.

Oh, go ahead, Tomaso.

Yeah, we could, I was, the only thing I was going to add is that, and city attorney's office can step in and correct me if this is mistaken, but my understanding from reading the two things together, the new infraction, as well as the incorporation of the RCW is that substantially, there's substantial, if not total overlap.

So it's possible that, you know, the conduct that triggers the ability to have the infraction fine is also conduct that could be eligible to be prosecuted as a gross misdemeanor, which includes up to a $5,000 fine.

And I don't think I'm speaking in error on that.

No, I would just say that the infraction is designed to go after the registered owner of the vehicle, whereas the crime itself would have to be prosecuted against the driver of the vehicle.

Okay.

The challenge in apprehending the driver is what we've talked about, whereas this is designed as an infraction.

to go after the registered owner as a disincentive to having your car involved in a racing event.

So that's the fine line between the two, the infraction versus the registered owner, the crime itself involving the driver.

Now, it could be one and the same, a pullover, the driver who's also the registered owner.

That could happen currently.

You get a reckless driving charge.

Let's say you're driving 100 miles an hour in a 60 mile an hour zone.

You get a reckless driving charge and a speeding infraction.

You can have both, but they're not exclusive or they're not mutually exclusive.

Got it, got it.

That makes sense.

So the infraction is intended to punish the registered car owner, whereas the criminal violation is intended to punish the driver.

And they can be mutually exclusive, or excuse me, they can exist at the same time, but not necessarily always.

I guess playing this out in practice as a practical matter, I guess from the city attorney's perspective, we'll be prosecuting these infractions and punishment, criminal violations.

Can you just comment on, practically speaking, how you plan to use the infraction fine in combination with the gross misdemeanor that the RCW incorporation adds to the city code to the extent there's variance there outside of what we just talked about?

Well, typically what we would do for those where we have the criminal charge and the infraction would track together with the criminal charge because that's the larger, the more impactful, it's the crime.

So they would be handled together and likely negotiated together.

And so what that would look like is, you know, I guess kind of to be determined on a particular case, but that's usually how we handle when we have those dual crime and an infraction together, track it with the crime and then negotiate the case.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And again, thank you everyone for attending.

Very serious topic.

Street racing is a major concern.

As I noted earlier, we've seen it ourselves.

Everybody's seen it.

Our constituents have seen it.

And it's important for very many reasons.

And this is going to be part of the bill as well.

The health and quality of life concerns.

I've heard veterans with PTSD, with the backfires and so forth, it's so key.

Those with anxiety and other mental health challenges, you know, the things that they're facing that obviously the people that are doing this have no clue, understanding, or care about.

This disruption of sleep, just basic health is so important.

And I would note, too, noise pollution is pollution.

We should be mindful of that.

I'd also say traffic and pedestrian safety is public safety.

You know, this is a clear and present danger.

And as you saw from the video, this is danger close.

You know, this could be, you know, one person, you know, kind of jumping in and so forth is one thing.

But we can have instances where instant bystanders, children could be impacted.

And, again, danger close.

And, you know, the last thing I wanted to say is, and this goes to our strategic framework and the permissive environment, it's come up a couple times during the course of this briefing, is that, you know, when you see the video and so forth, it gives the idea that this is permitted.

That it's permitted.

That we, you know, we don't care.

but we do care and we care for all the reasons we discussed, but we also care because we can't allow this creation and, you know, and not just creation, but, you know, reinforcing of this permissive environment piece, everything that we're doing is to counter that.

And so this is why this bill is so important.

And, um, and, uh, I just want to continue to do so.

And it's so important in of itself, but also for the note that, you know, this also leads to gun violence and other issues.

And so it's a great concern and we're going to press forward and through the committee and the council process.

So again, thank you very much for your participation today.

We have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to attend?

Hearing none, seeing none, we are adjourned.